Themes in American History: Capitalism, Slavery, Democracy

Blog Post #3: McPherson

 

The book The Revolution of 1860 by James McPherson gave me a more knowledgeable perspective on what it meant to go from being a slave to a free person. He writes about Frederick Douglass who initially believed: “The only well grounded hope of the slave for emancipation is the operation of moral force,” proving that he wouldn’t want the freedom of slaves if it meant “the shedding of one single drop of blood.” However, this was before 1850. A month after the fugitive slave law was enacted, he changed his view on how emancipation would be achieved. After this had occurred, Douglass claims: “who would be free must himself strike the blow” which is a direct implication on how abolitionists realized that in order for them to actually make strides in becoming free then they needed to act in the same way that the slave owners did. 

This book also gave me a different view on how the emancipation of slavery came to be because it helped characterize the importance of white people in this cause. John Brown was a mysterious white man who spent a lot of time, effort, and money to help free the slaves. He was fascinated by small groups of people being able to fend off huge forces. In fact, he studied guerilla warfare and slave revolts vigorously to the point where he felt ready to take action. After already traveling east to raise money for these causes, he finally went to convene with a community of free slaves. The thing that surprised me was that out of the 34 black people and 11 white people that were part of this secret group, John Brown was elected as commander in chief. Why would they elect someone who wasn’t impacted by the cause nearly as much as the rest of them? Why did he choose to put his life in danger for something that might not directly benefit him? In fact, it was interesting to learn that unlike many other abolitionists, Brown believed: “Without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin,” claiming that violence is necessary for the emancipation of slavery. 

In conclusion the book The Revolution of 1860 by James McPherson taught me about the ideals and backgrounds of the different types of abolitionists by comparing and contrasting white and black people who believed in the emancipation of slavery.

Eric Foner explains the influence of “Making of Radical Reconstruction.” He mentions the 14th amendment quite a few times in this reading explaining that it is more than “If you are born in the US, you are a citizen.” Foner ties the 14th amendment to “Radical Reconstruction”, he explains how the Republicans wrote into the Constitution their view of the Civil War. The other part of the 14th amendment is how all citizens are protected by law and allow all males to vote so the south have more representation in Congress. According to the reading “civil rights became the foundation of the 14th amendment.” I learned that the 14th amendment no longer allowed states to apply their own set of laws because all US citizens became protected by national law. This led to progress in “legal equality.” However, the 14th amendment created conflict due to the possibility of black men being able to vote. This also did not sit well with feminist supporters because the amendment only allowed black men to get the benefits of the amendment. The importance of African American votes grew changing the way the tide of any vote ended up with. Benefits from black votes would change the outcome bills, laws, and elections. With black votes counting for the same as white men, the treatment of African Americans possibly grew in order to have another for a certain bill they wanted to pass. 

What was a historical figure, event, or detail that particularly stuck out to you or interested you? How did the author use this figure, event, or detail to support his/her overall argument or interpretation? 

 

The Radical Reconstruction struck out to me the most in the reading called “The Making of Radical Reconstruction” by Eric Foner. The radical reconstruction was a time in the later 1800s where parties were trying to help the slave laborers get out of their dreadful situation of overworking and minimal to no compensation. Congress played a key role in making this life-changing decision for so many workers. 

 

Radical Reconstruction helped change the way labor workers or slaves were treated after the American Civil War. There was a position that was filled by someone. This person, under the title “Radical Republican”, is intended to be in charge of representing labor workers. The main purpose of this position is to ensure that former and current slaves(at the time) were protected and had the same civil rights as white Americans. The role of the Radical Republican was effective because it allowed radicals to gain support from other citizens such as manufacturers. According to Foner’s reading, it is stated that “Radicals also won support among manufacturers who saw upwardly mobile blacks as a new market for their products”(page 106). This shows how so many people were starting to take a stand for the radicals. This was just what Radical Republicans wanted and it affected the rest of the society- both people of color as well as White Americans. It positively affected people of color who were trying to get out of slavery, but White Americans were not very happy about this. The slaves (who are now being represented by Radicals), were meant to do labor and produce necessary goods for trade and profit such as cotton. Since the Radical Republicans are determined to reduce the labor of slaves(or essentially reduce free labor), the production of cotton will decrease and it will prevent businessmen from making money. Radical Republicans were reshaping the South so that the rich people living in that part of the society wouldn’t be able to control them. As a matter of fact, the Radicals proposed that the federal government should cut the “400 million acres of a plantation belonging to the wealthiest ten percent of Southerners”(page 107). This would eventually hurt those ten percent of the population that will no longer receive free cotton or money from cotton production More importantly, the people of color are now on the same level of civil rights as White Americans. To further support this movement, Congress removed the people who were originally selected as Southern Congressmen and formed a Joint Committee on Reconstruction to see if Southern states were eligible for representation. Unfortunately, the attempt to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment was unsuccessful because the proposed amendment stated that the weak class of laborers were to form contracts for their labor. This steered away from the main point to abolish slavery in the Southern states. This was doing the opposite of that, so President Andrew Johnson suggested that the amendment should be revised and reconsidered. President Johnson actually supported both Northerners and Southerners, but the Bureau Bill forced him to choose against his diverse allies. In other words, President Johnson went against the Southern states. 

 

The Radical Reconstruction movement in the mid-late 1800s was an attempt to change the way people of color were treated by their slave masters. They were producing loads of cotton without any compensation for their hard, long labor. Instances of labor with little to no pay still exist today such as the school bus protest that happened in the U.S as bus drivers were saying that they should receive more pay for the work that day do. In short, Radical Reconstruction had a strong impact on the government and population in the past briefly leading into the present where we still practice some of the same concepts.

 

The term “American reconstruction” refers to the period in American history from 1866 to 1877 when the Confederacy and slavery were both abolished in an attempt to resolve the Civil War’s legacy. Reconstruction addresses issues such as how the southern states re-join the union, the citizenship of the Confederacy’s leaders, and the legal status of the Black Freedman.

In Eric Foner’s “The Makings of Radical Reconstruction,” Eric investigates the growing influence of radical Republicans on reconstruction policies. Despite the best efforts of the northern Radical Republicans, Eric Foner’s Reconstruction theory is right in claiming that southern whites were more concerned with re-creating the past than with renovating a new civilization.  However, it may be said that reconstruction was a success and that the South attempted to change, but was hampered by the presence of freedmen.

“Before the war, three-fifths of the slaves had been included in the calculation of Congressional representation; now, as free persons, all would be counted. Since Republicans were not prepared to force black suffrage upon the South, they offered white Southerners a choice-enfranchise the freedmen or sacrifice representation in Congress. “(pg114） According to this section of the reading, civil rights become the foundation of the 14 amendments, which establish the notion of citizenship for all Americans born in the United States and enable the federal government to protect their rights. The amendment prohibited states from limiting citizens’ rights to privileges and immunities or denying them equal protection under the law. As a result, future congresses and federal courts were able to give meaning to this promise of legal equality. This is one way for modern and radical republicans to compromise, but the amendment did not grant black suffrage. This shows that the 14th amendment creates a great conflict between the parties because the republicans are against the idea of letting black people vote to keep the replication. 

The authors underline that African Americans were emancipated from the bottom up, not the other way around. While the importance of white political leaders and a few black radical thinkers are frequently acknowledged, the political strength of ordinary and unknown black slaves is sometimes overlooked.

 

Before the Civil War, Eric Foner explains, the Republicans celebration was once upon a time of increasing federal authority over states. During the conflict and then the reconstruction, a robust central authority was seen as essential to outlining the phrases by which the defeated southern states should return to the union and to implement those conditions. Eric Foner shows how the growth of federal authority at the time was radical thinking and the wing of the Republican Party that recommended it at times at odds with average and conservative party members. For example, in an article by Eric Foner, he shows that reconstruction radicalism was primarily a bourgeois ideology based on the definition of American citizenship. There was an independent or uniform radical position on the economic issues of the time (Eric Foner 106). This quote illustrates that the idea that reconstruction radicalism is the main idea of ​​American citizenship. Also about the radicalism of rebuilding American citizenship. Radical Republicanism, for example, had a social and economic vision, but one that derived from the ideology of free labor rather than a range of business interests (Eric Foner 106). The section on the fourteenth amendment has enhanced my knowledge of the various clauses in the amendment. The first clause does not allow states to curtail anyone’s equality. The second allows all men to vote, so the southern states benefit from greater representation. The male part of the clause did not help the feminist and felt betrayed.

“The Making of Radical Reconstruction” details both the concerns raised and the initiative prompted by the American government, or more specifically, the Radical Republican party, towards the development of policies that would serve as beneficial towards the reconstruction of the South and the reunion of a divided U.S. following the Civil War in the mid to late 1800’s. In extension to this, the author, Eric Foner implies that, despite much effort having been made in an unified front in such a process as lengthy and thought provoking as the literal reforming of a society that has been built on the very institution it no longer can legally maintain, members of the same congressional party (that is, the Radical Republicans) were  bound to experiencing some internal conflict or differences that interfered with the pacing of the overall establishment of reconstruction in the South. For instance, “The preeminent Radical leaders, Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner, differed in personality and political style…On the economic issues of the day no distinctive or unified Radical position existed. Stevens,…favored an economic program geared to the needs of aspiring entrepreneurs, including tariff protection, low interest rates, plentiful greenback currency, and promotion or internal improvements. On the other hand, Radicals like Charles Sumner… attuned to orthodox laissez-faire economic theory, favored a low tariff, the swift resumption of specie payments, and minimal government involvement in the economy”(Foner, 105-106). Due to their own varying individual and collective interests regarding the vision they had of the future of the economic (and assumably social and political) atmospheres of the South, as well as the fact that majority of them, the, “Congressional Radicals viewed economic issues [—of both the North and more particularly,—the South] as secondary [concerns] to those of [the general issues regarding] Reconstruction” (Foner, 106). It can be inferred that the policies that would otherwise address the future of the labor force, economic system and/or overall economy in terms of the reconstruction of the South were left unattended for a time.

John Brown was an abolitionist during the mid-1800s. However, he differed from other abolitionists because he believed that if there was blood to be shed, then one must do everything in their power to make this happen. In other words, violence was something he supported. This allows any intellectual to question whether Brown’s tactics and beliefs are ones to support, as violence was something that was typically looked down upon when attempting to abolish slavery. Thus, this shows that Brown’s point of view was unique and that these differences that he possessed only makes him that much more important.

 

Inevitably, there were members of society who fully supported the works of John Brown. “Some Yankees professed to admire Brown for daring to strike the slave power that was accustomed to pushing the North around with impunity” (page 210). A few liked his ideas so much as to have created a group that was known as the secret six. Brown came up with a plan to raid the South and was funded by this secret group. Because this group had been formed, this represents how many other members of society were also in support of Brown’s beliefs. This raid also shined light on the idea of the white southerners and their confusion between act and motive. Many republican leaders also feared any political damage, thus rejecting Brown.

 

From the beginning, even when “Passions ran high in Virginia, where mobs clamored for Brown’s blood” (page 206), Brown never gave into giving up on what he believed in. All in all, Brown wanted a revolution and he, himself, allowed this to happen. He believed in action over discussion, which I, too, support. Although violence may seem to be the wrong direction, as long as action takes place, change will occur. If members of society simply discussed and never acted upon the discussion, it would be considered a waste of time. All talk and no act is something Brown wanted to avoid. Because of this, John Brown became a hero to many people and stuck by his beliefs up until the date of his death.

Eric Foner analyzes the influences of “The Making of Radical Reconstruction” that Radical Republicans had which contoured Congressional policy. In this reading, he has a section that talks about the Fourteenth Amendment. Initially, I felt that the Fourteenth Amendment was nothing more than an amendment that made all people born in the U.S., citizens, as well as have equal protection from the law. The Fourteenth Amendment to me was made to protect the rights of freed African Americans and established the Due Process Clause that gave the right to privacy for women and abortion rights because of Roe vs. Wade. But I never understood why the amendment mashed both these things together.  After reading Foner’s interpretation on Reconstruction, and how the amendment relates to Radical Reconstruction I learned a couple of new things and realized I was wrong in my understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Foner mentions how the Republicans tried to put into the constitution their interpretation of the Civil War. As Foner states, “assembled in December 1865 to confront the crucial issues of Reconstruction: Who would control the South? Who would rule the nation?  What was the status of the emancipated slave?” (Foner. Pg. 104).  These questions mentioned by Foner show us concerns going on during the Civil War.  He mentions how Republicans outnumbered Democrats in both houses which we see later on how Republicans use this to make a more permanent law for free slaves with the Fourteenth Amendment.  Many issues were brought up during this Radical Reconstruction, questions such as if Southern states should be entitled to representation, status on the African American Suffrage, the protection of Civil Rights for newly freed slaves, and how to keep ex-confederates out of political power.  

After doing a little more research on the Fourteenth Amendment I found out that John Bingham was the lead author of writing the rights that the freed slaves would have similar to how the Civil Rights Act is written.  But Bingham felt that it was important to create something that would also take into consideration future problems and problems that weren’t as critical now but could potentially be a problem later on.  This is why the Fourteenth Amendment has statements of general principles that would need to be interpreted instead of written rights like the Civil Rights Act. This connects to what Foner said in the reading, “For more than a century, politicians, judges, lawyers, and scholars have debated the meaning of this elusive language.” (Foner, pg. 115). It is crazy to think how thought out the Fourteenth Amendment was before it was put into place. Foner mentions the three-fifths compromise that totally slipped my mind when realizing what changes occurred once slaves were emancipated.  Now that slaves were free, instead of only three-fifths of African Americans being counted now all would be counted. 

I also found a fault in my understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment. I had always thought the Fourteenth Amendment was created to make everyone equal and the Due Process Clause was created to protect the rights to privacy for women to choose if they want an abortion or not, but I never took into consideration the date on which the Amendment was created.  I realize now that the Fourteenth Amendment says nothing about abortions, it is just an interpretation of the Amendment.  Additionally, I found out that the Fourteenth Amendment left many feminist leaders feeling betrayed. Women’s rights activists Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Staton, and many others spoke up about the Fourteenth Amendment’s second clause which used the word “male”.  As Foner quotes from Staton, “‘must not put her trust in man’ in seeking her rights.” (Foner, pg. 115).  Because of this, feminists criticized Congress on how sex similar to race was not an acceptable reason for “legal distinctions among citizens” (Foner, pg. 115).  After reading what Foner had to say about Radical Reconstruction, I wonder if there were problems when these Radical Republicans were trying to create legislation for these newly freed slaves.  At this time there probably wasn’t any African American politician power so how did they figure out how to rightfully represent the African American community?

 

In A Short History of Reconstruction by Eric Foner the passage he talked about topics that impacted the reconstruction. For example the Fourteenth Amendment that granted citizenship to all persons born in the United States including former enslaved people. He also states the origin of civil rights and radical republicans. He is illustrating that the reconstruction affected everyone and had a significant impact in many ways. 

The section on the Fourteenth Amendment expanded my knowledge of the different clauses within the amendment. The first clause does not allow states to shorten someone’s equality. The second allows all males to be able to vote so that southern states benefit from having more representation. The “male” part of the clause did not help feminist and felt betrayed. 

I personally never thought about what politicians had to do to keep peace. But Foner mentions that there wasn’t a national police force or permanent military to keep the rights of former slaves. Southern blacks and white loyalists tried to convince Congress that they can not trust Southern states to solve their problems without federal oversight. Former slaves feared that southern states would find loopholes to try to stop former slaves from having their rights. Something that was interesting was President Andrew Johnson. He “had” to veto any bill that had to do with reconstruction because he needed to keep his support between the north and southern states. He knew that the Freedmen’s Bureau would upset white southerners. Foner also states that Johnson believed “giving blacks citizenship was discriminating against whites.” Johnson has obviously picked a side and many northerners are not happy that he was blatantly racist. Foner pointed out major events and topics that were significant to the reconstruction era. At the end everything connected and it seems like there was a domino effect with Johnson trying to keep his support but ended up losing support.

Throughout the past few weeks my knowledge on the reconstruction era has immensely increased but also my interests on it. In the reading by Joshua Brown, “Reconstructing Representation, 1866-1877,” from Beyond The Lines I got to see that the reconstruction era also known as “America’s Unfinished Revolution” has way more to it than I initially thought. Of course I believed it was just like any other “ordinary” history event that had its ending but this one was different. It was interesting to see that it wasn’t as simple as I thought. In class we learned several things that were new during this time period like the 14th and 15th amendment, and the black codes. This reading showed me a different approach to this era. This reading really goes into depth of how bad this era really was despite the “changes” being made. Families would have a hard time getting basic necessities because of these changes , “The father of the family, a strong, athletic man whose labor could bring means to support his family in comfort, sits idly by his cabin-door.. While his hard working wife and almost starving children gather around the oven.. Wondering where the next supply of food may come from,” (Brown 132-133). Learning that there was a labor strike was really interesting to me because it gave a new approach in seeing the effects of the reconstruction era. “The bitter “Long Strike ” during winter of 1874-75,” (Brown 132) shows that although a lot of essentially good changes were being made they weren’t good enough especially. Families were struggling to keep up with basic necessities after the reconstruction era as well as during the start of the Gilded Age (given that this strike was during the 1800s). We also see that there were specifically strikes with coal mining, miners in general which was really interesting to know the specifics. This is similar to life today because although changes are being made in our country slowly, there are still major things that need change. Like seen in this text, poverty and labor is still an issue today that needs solving today.